Many Buffalo personal injury lawsuits involve situations where a person is responding to an unexpected situation and causes injury.  This can occur, for example, where a car veers into the other lane, causing a driver in that lane to swerve and strike a third car or a pedestrian.  Under this scenario, the driver who swerved may be found not responsible for the accident because he or she was responding to an emergency situation.  This is not, however, required by law.

Even where an emergency situation exists, the person responding to the emergency situation must still establish that he or she responded to the emergency as a reasonably prudent person would.  The standard of what constitutes a “reasonable” response may be lowered based on issues such a lack of time to decide on what action to take.

In the scenario of the veering car set forth above, the actions of the driver of the second car would have to be scrutinized to determine if negligence was supported.  If, for example, it were established that the driver of the second car would have had additional time to react to the car veering into the lane, but he or she was not paying adequate attention to what was there to be seen, he or she may still be found negligent. 

If you have suffered a personal injury, we would be happy to help you.  Please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444.

When a Buffalo resident suffers a personal injury in a motor vehicle accident, he or she is required to meet the “serious injury” threshold before damages may be recovered.  Briefly put, the purpose of the “serious injury” threshold is to weed out cases involving only minor injuries.  New York State law sets forth several categories of serious injury that define when an injury qualifies.

Recently, the highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals, issued a ruling addressing three separate cases involving serious injury:  Perl v. Meher, Adler v. Bayer and Moonan v. Batchi.  The rulings in these cases provide the lower courts with additional guidance regarding when an injury qualifies as a serious injury.
While the cases addressed several issues related to the serious injury threshold, perhaps the most important issue involved the handling of pre-existing conditions.  This is an issue when, for example, an older plaintiff has signs of arthritis in the neck but suffers additional injury to the neck following the motor vehicle collision.  The defense frequently argues in such cases that the entire injury is pre-existing and, therefore, the judge should dismiss the case because there is no proof of serious injury.

The Court of Appeals found that in such cases, whether the condition was pre-existing or caused by the accident is a question of fact that should generally be left to the jury’s decision.  So long as both sides present competent medical proof regarding their position, the judge should allow the jury to make the decision instead of dismissing the personal injury lawsuit.

As experienced Buffalo personal injury attorneys, we have seen the damage caused when tractor-trailers and other commercial vehicles are involved in motor vehicle collisions.  Because of the strong potential for catastrophic personal injury or death in these types of accidents, the drivers of these types of large vehicles have been subject to additional regulation for years.  Recently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) released new regulations further limiting the number of hours commercial truck drivers may work based on growing concerns of driver fatigue.

Given the distances many commercial truck drivers are expected to cover and the pressure to make timely deliveries, truck drivers’ work hours have been strictly regulated.  Based on recent studies regarding the effects of driver fatigue and how long an individual may drive before fatigue sets in, the FMCSA determined that reduced weekly work hours and mandated additional rest time was necessary for safety.

Significant changes include a reduction in the maximum number of hours a commercial truck driver may work in a seven-day period from 82 hours to 70 hours, and a requirement barring truck drivers from driving after working more than eight continuous hours unless they take at least a 30 minute break.

It was anticipated that the FMCSA also would be reducing the maximum number of driving hours per day from 11 to 10.  While the organization has declined to do so, it has stated an intent to continue analyzing data and researching this issue to determine if a reduction is warranted.  Commercial truck drivers and trucking companies must comply with these new regulations by July 1, 2013.

When releasing these new regulations, the Department of Transportation confirmed that the primary focus was on reducing driver fatigue and preventing truck accidents caused by fatigue.  In an effort to give the regulations additional force and reduce personal injuries and deaths caused by truck accidents, the fines for violating the provisions have also been significantly increased.

It is no surprise that the percentage of Buffalo personal injury auto accidents that may be attributable to distracted driving seems to have increased as cell phones and texting have become prevalent.  Recently, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland noted that the biggest challenge his agency faces is finding the right balance between new technologies that make it easier for drivers to report serious accidents – potentially saving lives – and the potential for the very same technology to distract drivers and cause personal injury accidents.

Automakers have increasingly incorporated new communications technology into their vehicles that can be helpful in obtaining help during an emergency.  Unfortunately, many of these devices and systems rely upon cell phones or other electronic technology that has been established to lead to accidents by distracting drivers. 
Mr. Strickland noted that 90 percent of motor vehicle accidents are the fault of drivers, and that the NHTSA is concerned over the number of motor vehicle deaths that are caused by distracted driving.  He also discussed the issue of texting and driving.  Currently, many states and cities, including New York State, ban texting while driving.  There is, however, no NHTSA guideline in place.  Mr. Strickland indicated that they are working with automakers and cellular phone companies to determine the appropriate standard.

Overall, he expressed a hope that once the distracted driving issues are resolved, these technologies could be used to help reduce the serious personal injury and death caused by motor vehicle accidents.

Next time you take a walk around Buffalo, pay attention to the sound of the cars.  While we have all complained at some point about cars and trucks roaring by and disturbing our peace and quiet, a recent study by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that this noise helps pedestrians and bicyclists avoid serious injury.

This government study involved research into accidents involving hybrid vehicles, which usually run on electric power at slower speeds and, as a result, emit little noise.  While the percentage of hybrid vehicles on the roads today is still small, auto manufacturers are releasing a number of new hybrid and fully electric models in 2012, and the number of these vehicles on the roads in expected to grow significantly in the next few years.  The NHTSA conducted this study based on concerns that this influx of quiet vehicles on the roads may ultimately prove hazardous.

The study found that hybrid cars were twice as likely to strike a pedestrian or bicyclist as vehicles with internal combustion engines.  The primary reason for this dramatic difference would appear to be that pedestrians and bicyclists did not hear the hybrid vehicle approaching prior to being struck.  While this finding should concern everyone, it is of specific significance to the blind and visually-impaired, who are at greater risk because they rely on their ability to hear vehicles when walking on or near roadways.

Because the number of quiet vehicles on the roads is expected to increase significantly, the NHTSA is proposing that hybrid and electric vehicles be required by law to make noise at slower speeds.  In an effort to come up with a sound that would both protect pedestrians and bicyclists and work for drivers who want a nice, quiet car, the NHTSA has both consulted with professional sound studios and accepted proposals on Facebook.

If you have been injured by a car, please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444.  We would be happy to explain your legal rights to you.

As experienced personal injury attorneys practicing in Buffalo for many years, we have noted that when it comes to automobile accidents, we tend to represent more injured women than men.  A recent study has found that this is not just a fluke seen only at our personal injury law firm, but a national trend.

This is not the first time this issue has been noted and studied.  Previous studies, however, tended to focus on differences between men and women in driving technique to determine whether this could account for the increased risk to women.  The current study, conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia and Navarra University in Spain, focused on vehicle design.  

After examining ten years of data regarding motor vehicle accidents in the United States, the researchers found that the risk of serious injury to women is greater than men – and for some type of injuries, much greater – because car safety features tend to be designed with men in mind.

The researchers looked at similar accidents involving men and women and the injuries that resulted from the collision.  According to the researcher’s article in the American Journal of Public Health, they found that the odds of a woman driver who is wearing a seatbelt suffering a serious injury is 47 percent higher than that of a belted male driver is a comparable automobile accident. 

While there may multiple reasons for this discrepancy, the researchers noted that certain safety features tended to inadequately protect women.  The position of head restraints, for example, tended to favor men and did not account for gender differences in the size and strength of the neck.  Women also were found to be at greater risk of injuries to the legs because of they tend to be shorter than men.  The researchers advocated for auto manufacturers to examine how safety features can be enhanced to offer better protection to women.

If you have suffered a serious injury in a car accident, we would be happy to answer your questions.  Please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444.

While most of the rules governing driving in Buffalo are made by New York State, the federal government has a strong voice – backed by federal funding – regarding state driving laws.  Recently the Senate Commerce Committee approved an auto safety bill aimed at overhauling several different areas of auto safety.

Parts of the bills, if passed by the full legislature, would provide federal grants to states that ban behavior such as texting while driving and the use of cell phones by teenagers.  New York State is well ahead of the federal government and many states in this area, having already banned such activity.  The bill also would fund research for the further development of ignition interlock devices in motor vehicles, which prevent an intoxicated driver from being able to start the car.

Aside from introducing incentives for states to adopt new laws controlling dangerous behavior by drivers, the bill also would have a substantial impact on how motor vehicle recalls are handled by automakers.  Currently, the maximum fine for delaying in issuing a recall is $17.5 million.  The bill seeks to have this maximum potential fine to automakers raised to $250 million.  It also would enhance the vehicle recall database and website and create a telephone hotline that mechanics, dealers and auto workers may use to place anonymous complaints regarding vehicle safety issues.

Under New York State law, all Buffalo motor vehicle accident lawsuits require the injured person to prove that he or she suffered a “serious injury” before damages can be recovered.  The law defines several different categories of what may constitute a serious injury.  While some categories – a fracture or dismemberment, for example – are straightforward and easy to prove, other categories – such as a significant limitation of use of the injured part or a permanent consequential limitation – are more ambiguous and require proof of the degree of injury.

To meet the serious injury threshold under one of these categories, the injured party must be able to establish (1) objective evidence that an injury occurred and (2) the degree of limitation.  Objective evidence of injury generally consists of physical evidence, such as CT scans or a doctor’s direct observation of trauma.  Without objective evidence, a serious injury under these categories cannot be proven.

New Yorkcourts have ruled that the second prong of this test – degree of limitation – may be established in two ways.  One way is for proof to be submitted of testing performed by a medical professional that establishes a limitation.  For example, a test may show a decreased ability to move a body part.  Limitation may also be proven through a description of the degree to which the injured person’s day to day living is impacted by the injury.  For example, a medical provider may find that someone should not lift as much, should not work with their arms overhead, or cannot sit for extended periods of time.  If the impact on daily living is found to be great enough, these factors may also be sufficient to establish a serious injury.

Buffalo motorcyclists should be aware that Honda is recalling 126,000 motorcycles as a result of a braking problem that may lead to a fire or cause a crash.  The motorcycles affected are the 2001-2010 and 2012 GL 1800 models, also known as the Gold Wing models.

A defect in the master cylinder of the rear brake of these models may result in the brake remaining partially engaged after the rider has released it.  According to Honda, the drag on the rear brake from driving while it is engaged has the potential to generate sufficient heat to lead to it catching fire. 

Honda is aware of two incidents where a fire had occurred, along with several reports of rear brake dragging.  While Honda’s report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not provide any details regarding whether the brake issue had led to any accidents, for drivers motorcycles, the potential for difficulty maintaining control with the rear tire grabbing is obvious.

If you have suffered an injury in a motorcycle accident, we would be glad to help.  Please call us at 716-542-5444.

Motorcycle accidents are among the worst cases handled by Buffalo personal injury attorneys.  The injuries suffered can be catastrophic and, under New York State law, motorcycle drivers seldom carry No Fault Insurance.  This insurance would provide for at least a portion of their immediate medical and financial needs.  All motorcyclists should make every effort to protect themselves from accidents, including complying with recalls to repair potentially dangerous defects in their motorcycles.

Recently, Harley-Davison issued a recall of approximately 308,000 motorcycles to fix a problem that has led to brake light failure and may even result in actual failure of the rear brakes.  The models affected are the 2009 through 2012 models of the Touring, CVO Touring and Trike motorcycles.

According to the company, exposure to heat from the exhaust on these models can cause a switch controlling the brake lights to fail.  The heat may also cause brake fluid leaks and loss of the rear brakes.

Harley-Davison dealers will be installing a replacement rear brake light switch kit in recalled motorcycles free of charge.

If you have been injured in a motorcycle accident, we would be happy to help you.  Please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444.